‘Slighted’ by HC remark,magistrate appeals SC

In a rare breakaway from the ‘rule of law’,or the strict hierarchy of courts in Indian judiciary,Ajay Pandey,an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) with the Patiala House Courts,went to the Supreme Court with his complaint that the “harsh” words of Delhi High Court judge Justice G S Sistani would have a “long-lasting effect” on his “career”.

The magistrate told a Special Bench led by Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan,“There could have been better ways to tell me,a trial court magistrate,if some mistake was done in the eyes of the Honourable High Court.”

The trial judge then sought a stay on the observations,which he claimed would otherwise “influence” his annual confidential report.

The Supreme Court advised the magistrate to present his grievance before Justice S Ravindra Bhat,his supervising judge in High Court.

Magistrate Pandey fell in the bad books of the High Court for ordering an accused to surrender on July 30,2009. The accused,Narender Jain,was permitted bail by Justice Sistani earlier the same month to attend his wife’s surgery.

The magistrate told the apex court that in arriving at his decision on July 30,he had put a premium on the fact that Jain was involved in 71 criminal cases pending in Delhi and other states. Magistrate Pandey also stated that the date of Jain’s wife’s surgery had already been shifted several times in July 2009,before it was fixed on July 25.

He submitted before the Supreme Court that he was merely following Justice Sistani’s order that Jain should be directed to surrender in case of any further shift in surgery date. The surgery took place on August 3.

Justice Sistani,before whom the matter came up again on August 4,took exception to the fact that no effort was made by Pandey to hear Jain before ordering for his surrender. The Court also recorded a submission by Jain’s lawyer that surgery dates were shifted on doctors’ advice.

“The ACMM has exceeded his jurisdiction… (and) showed complete lack of judicial discipline,” Justice Sistani noted in his August 4 order. The High Court judge also directed that a copy of his order against Pandey be “brought to the notice of the inspecting judge”.

“I have always obtained good/very good remarks in respect of my annual confidential report,” Magistrate Pandey submitted in Supreme Court. He said in his petition that the High Court’s comments have left an “adverse impact” on him among fellow judges,lawyers and litigants.

He is yet to place his grievance before supervising judge.